Soft sharp and hard sharp lenses.

My Olympus lens kit has grown a bit lately and it is possible to feel that some of the lenses purchased may have been redundant purchases, but even though one purchase in particular was made on the spur of the moment, the process as a whole was measured.

One of the criteria used to determine relevance, was the “feel” of the lens. This is where two lenses can share technically the same space, but have very different subject rendering.

Lets put forward a theory based on feel, not numbers, charts and resolution charts.

“Smooth Sharp”;

This is where a lens shows a rich, smooth, lushness. This look reminds me of a lot of medium format lenses from the height of film shooting days (Mamiya and Bronica especially). Medium format offered inherently good enough quality to allow the designers of it’s lenses more room for character or just sharpness. I also equate this with the Canon look I was used to with the 5D mk3/7D mk1. Most 35mm lenses were sharpness biased (obsessed), because that format was transitioning in the 1980’s through to the 2000’s from too small, to enough for pro work and the lens was the bigger contributor to the formula.

The lenses I have that are “Smooth sharp” are;

The 25mm f1.8, 12-40 pro*, 75-300 and 45mm at f1.8-2.8.

Both the 25mm and 12-40 have been on the outer with me at one point or the other. Their high sharpness is not clearly evident and both share excellent smooth, but fast drop off Bokeh, which also punishes focus errors (I possibly do not see this with the 75-300 simply because it is so slow). This had the combined effect of low perceived sharpness, that on closer investigation was false.

Plenty of fine detail and the smooth sharp lens files also enlarge well.

Smooth sharp lenses are excellent for people, general shooting and jpeg users. The forgiving nature of their sharpness can simply make an image look good with little effort.

What they seem to be weak at is dealing with “mushy” high ISO’s and murky light.

*

Hard sharp;

More like early top tier 35mm lenses of the past, hard sharp lenses have strong micro contrast, which also seems to lead to more coherent (messier), long transition Bokeh. They often look less rounded in presentation, rendering the world in a more literal, less forgiving way, but when maximum perceived detail is needed, they shine. These lenses have a habit of looking sharp even when the image is not perfect, hiding slight motion blur and noise artefacts well. I feel these lenses are best suited to landscapes, tough light (both high and low contrast) and any subject that needs more detail rather than gentler presentation. What they are less good at is communicating glow or glassiness.

My “Hard Sharp” Olympus lenses are;

The 17mm f1.8, 12-100 pro, 40-150 pro, 45mm after f2.8.

The 40-150 pro handled ISO 3200 on the EM5’s better than any other lens I own. I put this down to Olympus paying close attention to the micro contrast of this lens.

The exception lens;

The 75mm f1.8 seems to offer the best of both worlds. Lush and deep in rendering, it also jumps off the page with very fine detail. The only “flaw” it has is pronounced flattening of perspective.

Camera considerations.

There is also a balancing effect these lenses can provide when pairing them with various Olympus sensors. The EM1 mkI/II both use phase detection on-sensor focussing and stronger noise reduction that changes the sensor’s rendering ever so slightly. I feel (and DP review goes some way to bearing this out), that these sensors have a more “smooth sharp” look where the other sensors are “hard sharp”. With this in mind, it is possible to mate the most exaggerated or balanced combinations;

The Pen F with 12-100 for maximum clarity and perceived fine detail resolution as a landscape paragon.

The EM1 mk2 with 12-40 for higher smoothness and gentlest rendering at the expense of the characteristic M43 hyper-sharp look.

I may be talking out of my hat completely, but I do not see any need to ignore my intuition when it comes to how my gear makes me feel and creatively think as I use it, as that alone is a relevant part of the process.

The other "true" format

The other format that I find more genuine and less compromised is the cinematic or semi panoramic one.

The human eyes see naturally into a panoramic or wide screen format. There is a reason films are shot in 16:9 ratio or wider. It looks awesome and feels natural.

For stills, it has an amazing feeling of depth and drama, forcing the shooter to use the whole frame width to tell a story. Rather than the rather ambiguous semi wide 3:2 or semi square 4:3 ratios, the true cinematic super wide commits to a look that is far stronger, but more demanding.

You cannot often lift a super wide from a rectangle (all of these were), but the pixel wastage can be crippling (as can paper wastage).

Rather than the instant, almost invisible comprehension the square offers, the cine-wide makes the viewer look left to right (or right to left depending on the subject).

Comprehension of the space is forced into an exploration dynamic. This is not a glance and hold format like the square, it is a look and explore format.

This “Super-Cine” format can do what normal rectangles fail to do. It can create drama on an epic scale.

Depth can be used, but also the full width can tell a story from end to end.

Extra height in this image dilutes the story the two women on the end add.

The power of the strong graphic elements in this image are again reduced with more height. The image becomes half about the seats and half the negative space above, to no benefit.

The sweeping landscape suddenly emerges from even confined spaces.

There are even opportunities for multiple stories to intermingle. I think the true master of this format (not me) could balance multiple elements, allowing each their own strength, but use them also to support each other to even greater combined effect.

Repetition can also be used in a stronger fashion.

Flexible Portrait framing

The square image (You may have noticed a tread here), seems to have enormous flexibility in portrait framing options. I am not saying that rectangle images do not, but the square seems to allow the rules to be broken.

The normal “looking in” composition horizontal images prefer and portrait orientated images require.

A rule breaking centred figure. Still seems ok in the bias neutral square.

The “looking to the short side” image. Still solid. This can be dramatic with a rectangle is appropriate to the situation/subject, but is usually too strong a statement image for a general portrait.

Ok, let’s try again.

Centred as a compromise between facing and eye direction and balancing the edge elements. The dynamic of the younger woman on the main subjects shoulder is clear.

Slightly more balanced. More about the main subject and nothing else.

More dramatic and tense, but still viable? The introduction of the man on the right changes the feel of the image and the woman almost seems to be cramped, even harassed in this composition.

A benefit or something that a rectangle can do?

Square eyes

I am a little hooked on this square thing.

This may even offer a fix to an old favourite, that has never really made the big leagues due to poor luck/skill framing.

Too wide for the height needed making the woman look jammed against the side of the frame.

Much less tense.

It may seem a little odd that I have re-discovered something that has been under my nose for any amount of time, but the reality is, only digital and then mirrorless has allowed me to think in purely square format.

35mm frame film cameras give no preview and even DSLR’s need to be in live view. Mirrorless allows you to shoot in a format or colour/mono setting and see the result before shooting.

Hip to be square.

More thinking on square format.

The following images are rectangular images taken on our last trip to Japan (all taken in the same hour for consistency of thinking). All I have done is impose a square shape on them. The reason I have not in the past is simply a lack of this as a focus in shooting and processing. processing square in the past felt like just another, even less compatible shape in a mess of different shapes.

In each case I find the square stronger and cleaner or at least equal to the original. Some of the images were not even on my radar until changed to square format.

The first five sets are definitely better square, the six and seven could go either way, but remember they were shot to be rectangles, and eight is much stronger square. Also, they can now be used in sets as triptych or 2x2 format blocks.

maybe a book of 4 panel groups? A bit like a book of Haiku. Maybe a book of Haiku about sets of triptych sets?

Self Imposed limits for increased productivity

I often start a new creative process or period of high productivity with a desire to force a style on myself. It seems to trigger itself as soon as I say “going to do a project”.

After a period of self examination, I often relent and with some relief, decide not to pigeon-hole myself into a single process. I think this “WU-Wei” style of shooting although very free flowing and can lead to a period of productivity in any environment, but, it also leads to a lot of work, without any cohesion.

If I ask myself what I need to make sure consistent, cohesive and relevant work is produced, the simple answer is limitations and controls, i.e. a plan.

Self imposed limitation (SIL) #1.

Shoot in square format*. We view images based on their shape. The square is bias neutral which is to say, the subject inside the frame determines it’s perceived shape, not the frame itself. To me, it is one of the two “correct” ratios (the other being 2 to 3:1 panorama or “cinematic” which forces specific, dramatic, but natural compositions). Square images give the entire frame even relevance, making every part of the frame crucial to the image. Even the “negative space’ in a square image is critical to the balance of the whole.

I find this releasing. Rectangles force their shape on the image, and that does not alway sit ideally. Personally, I almost always crop a rectangle image to one degree or another. This creates issues with framing and coherent presentation. When I am shooting in square format, there is no indecision. I use the frame as presented. It is similar to the argument of prime vs zoom lenses. One offers more possible options, the other a clear limitation. When I switched to Olympus it was for the form factor of the cameras and the quality of the lenses not the format.

A square allows you lots of balanced framing options. It even seems to promote “out of the box” thinking within the box. The image below does little for me in it’s natural rectangular format.

To be honest, I am not sure I have ever been fully accepting of rectangular formats.

Other benefits of square images are;

Taking them is often easier technically. No portrait aspect issues with tripods/heads and no on the spot aspect ratio decision making. This is especially true if you are shooting in live view or at waist height. For street shooting, this may seem counter intuitive and that may be the case, so I am limiting this thinking to landscapes for now. For street, maybe just shooting wider or deliberately tighter will fix the issue, maybe even force a new and better style, maybe not. The best possible outcome may be shooting in the camera’s native format, but only processing in square (almost a double discovery option).

They frame logically in almost any frame shape either singly or in multiples, just place the print on the paper as suits.

My favourite fine art presentation style and it really only works with a square image.

Multi image presentation. A 3x3, 2x2 or triptych tell a story, which in turn can make each image more useful (not more powerful). The squares themselves allow for very a balanced layout (they often sort themselves out logically), then sit harmoniously together.

They also can process better, especially if they need to be re cropped for presentation. The added negative space can be used as needed to fill a magazine cover ration or to place text etc (6x7 was often used for magazine assignments because it fit the cover ratio). When shooting in a rectangle format, a choice has to be made to suit the possible future needs of the printer or presenter. With square, they can potentially create what ever shapes they want.

Lastly and most importantly, I frikkin’ love square format. This probably goes all the way back to “the one true format” thinking of the Hassleblad/Rolleiflex era. It excites me and releases me.

The down sides are few;

There is some wastage of pixels, although with M43, less so*. The maximum single image size limit is the “short” side of your format, but multi image printing effectively triples the effectiveness of each image with “breathing space” between images taken into account, so wall presence is actually increased. If a single image is printed, unless framed as a square, the wasted paper is actually an ideal framing tool (see the leaf image above).

You may need a wider lens than usual or frame tighter than usual due to the height:width ratio changing. The feeling of missing out on detail to the sides or top/bottom of an image is removed by shooting wider, often forcing more elements into the frame, but in turn creating broader compositional opportunities (remember the negative space option). This is for me a non issue as I rarely use wide angle lenses and recently expanded my range two full focal lengths wider, so my shooting style will remain un changed, with the added width allowed for naturally. I also prefer semi abstract and tighter, cleaner compositions, which this promotes.

You need to shoot with at least a square preview grid in live view mode or risk cramping the file on the short side (see the point above). You need to think square to shoot square, plucking squares out of rectangles can be frustrating. The set above were originally shot in 4:3 ratio, but worked ok, many others did not.

You need to get used to it.

Ok, that is limitation number 1. Next post we will explore limitation 2.

*With digital cameras of course black and white and square are only suggestions to a RAW file, so you can always explore other options after capture.

Fighting the anti-creatives.

Having a hard time staying enthusiastic at the moment, so a little kind to my self mantra.

“If I go out there I doubt I will find anything worth capturing”.

How about this;

“There is so much going on at any one time in this world, that if all of us were photographers and we all photographed constantly, we could never capture all of it”.

Better?

Writers block or it’s equivalent, is relevant to any artistic endeavour. It is a reality we all face. The more you want to achieve, the more you perceive you have to loose and generally the more you perceive you do lose.

Taking ownership of the end of the journey before travelling through to it creates three problems;

1) You rail-road yourself down a path that is bound to be different to your pre-conceptions,

2) You set a limit (high and low) to your expectations, not allowing for a flexible ending,

3) You forget to enjoy the journey.

The happiest people are the ones who genuinely enjoy the journey, with or without a clear destination in mind.

Another of life’s Bugbears;

“Nothing I do is original, it has all been done before”.

Change to;

“Nobody can do my take on the world, better than me”.

and lastly;

“How do I do work that matters to others. What do people want of me that will impress (I can sell to) them?”

Should be;

“Work I love creating has as much or more chance of being liked by others as work I hate doing, but most importantly I will like it”.

Love this image, even though it less than perfect (would like another foot of breathing space on the right).

Familiar thoughts?

We all have them.

Keep plugging away.

Old and new 25's and a rant about rendering.

The post on Petapixel/Yannick Khong about the 3D rendering of older lenses* got me pondering the merits of my ancient Pen lens compared to my state of the art kit level 25mm.

First up, Bokeh

Same f2.8 aperture, roughly the same shooting distance and foreground focus point (hard to be scientific when you can’t even be bothered to get out of bed). The Bokeh is obviously different with the older lens. It is looking a lot like the 17mm f1.8’s rendering, messier but more coherent of OoF details. I love how the older lens (left) treats colours with an antique touch, except the skin tones of my wife’s foot (the missing focal point) were a touch washed out. The out of frame green wall has a beautiful 70’s film look (see below).

Again, the old lens on the left. This file has had a little treatment (lightened and with de-hazing applied which it often requires at f2.8), but the bokeh was left alone. The new lens looks smoother and more settled, but possibly less interesting. The wider than 25mm true focal length of the new lens really shows out here to. The third image is the new lens at f1.8. Typically razor sharp on the point of focus, the DoF drop-of does not look to be as dramatically different to the 2.8 image as the aperture should suggest (even allowing for the slightly greater distance). This possibly helps support my theory that the drop is by design more dramatic (modern on-trend) with this lens and any wider aperture can apply it.

At these distances the older lens seems to hold up well for sharpness etc, but as with a lot of older film generation lenses, “biting” sharpness and fine detail resolution are not there, because it was simply not needed. This was true also of some well loved old Nikon, Leica and Contax/Zeiss glass I have used.

It must be burdensome to lens designers these days. They know that a lot of less measurable lens characteristics are relevant, but modern scrutiny does not allow them the freedom to express that. An current example of this trend is comparing the three Olympus 17mm lenses. The 17mm f2.8 has a pleasant three dimensional and natural look, but gets canned for it’s sharpness and CA. The 17mm f1.8 has a utility perfectly designed for street and documentary photography, but is again poorly rated for test bench performance, where the 17mm Pro is near “perfect” in it’s Bokeh rendering and sharpness, but without the character (designed acceptance of “flaws”) the older two show.

I think the Panasonic/Leica glass gets hard done by here. A lot of reviews have said the Olympus trio are technically better, but to my eye, I actually prefer the Leica lenses, even the plastic 25mm over the Oly pro.

What the new 25mm is best at, sharp plane of focus and smooth fall away. the spotted sheet is a Bokeh torture test, that it handles well enough. Remember this is a 25mm lens, not a 50mm as on a full frame, so the DoF is coming from a wide angle by FF measurements. The Olympus engineers have possibly worked to exaggerate the drop off of DoF to help smaller format users get the bigger sensor look.

*I am still on the fence about the 3D vs flat look debate. There is something in specific cases and the data is reasonable and probably provable, but i do not feel it has much effect on (my) photography as the muddy middle ground of most gear and situations. The love I have for my 17mm, which has always gone against technical measurement, is possibly explained by this phenomenon as is my “one trick pony” feeling towards my 75mm, but I do remember having similar feelings towards the 135L, (especially compared to the more powerful 200L) I used for years before, and that is rated at the other end of the scale to the 75.

Personally I do feel there I a predictable flatness about the rendering “feel” of some of my Olympus glass, but some of my favourite images have been taken with them, so on a case by case basis, I can live with it.

More 3d than most? This is the 1DsMk2 with the 135L at work in an old file, the original lost to time. The problem is, and this is the rub, you need direct comparisons to be able to tell. if that is the case, then does it just fall into the same category as the pixel peeping race and sensor filtering levels, irrelevant without head to head comparison and micro scrutiny?

The argument may also be subject to personal taste.

I know that when I show people two similar images with different Bokeh rendering, they may respond differently to the two images, but often do not pick why. If the difference is pointed out, they can often see it, but equally often could not care less.

When the same exercise was tried on some friends and family they simply did not recognise the difference in “flatness” because identical images were not shown and the difference was too subtle. I will not dispute there is a strong argument for the phenomenon existing, but I do doubt there is enough feeling of loss out there to make a difference.

The people who will know and care will know why there is a difference, but the common shooter, even pro’s will be too obsessed with sharpness, convenience, Bokeh (a term they can latch onto even if misguidedly**) and prestige to shift thinking. These people may respond to a particular lens as we once responded to Bokeh, on an instinctive level, but without any recognised terminology or awareness to apply to that instinct they will use terms like “snappy”, or “glassy” even “three dimensional”, without thinking more deeply on the subject. Like film to digital or even film to film changes, the current look of lenses it is now fashionable and accepted, so it will take a powerful and compelling new fashion to shift it.

This is exactly the point Yannick makes himself.

**I think it highly ironic, that the pervading lack of understanding of the varieties and applications of all of the many different types of Bokeh has created a hunger for “perfect” blur only. True masters of Bokeh or lens rendering “character” will use the right type for it’s best application. Flat Bokeh, begets flat rendering. The problem arose I think when the Japanese awareness of Bokeh from a purely visual sense had to become a measurable thing in the west.

It got scienced to death.

I remember reading the first articles ever on Bokeh in Photo Techniques May/June 1997. The feel and look of the example lenses and their explanations by the photographer’s using them was emotional, exciting and seemed so very logical, but the one article I could not be bothered with was the scientific explanation. Bokeh balls…phuehgh!

Imperfection or the other side of creativity

If the review-a-sphere is to be believed, a good image making machine must have many good or preferably better than good characteristics.

High dynamic range, still often not good enough, so HDR has become a softening trend, super sharpness and perfect noise control are all desirable features.

Like a lot of things, there is also a second side to this thinking.

How about a low dynamic range image with strong shadows and lots of negative space, allowing drama and graphic compositional strength? I remember seeing a series of street images by John Isaac (ex- U.N. photographer), who expertly used effectively black shadows to cut his images into positive/negative space. The early Olympus digital cameras he was using were DR limited by more modern digital standards, but he used the deepness of the black as a creative tool, not a barrier. This was also common with film, even though it had greater dynamic range than a lot of early digital sensors.

A save of a truly horrific colour file, shot through dirty and flare covered glass at Melbourne zoo.

What about grain (noise) for texture and added perceived acutance? Grain was a common acutance (edge sharpness) tool in black and white. very fine grained images were fine, but often a little introduced texture could actually look sharper, even if there was effectively no detail retained.

Nothing technically good about this image, but still a personal favourite from my first trip overseas with digital. The camera (1000D Canon, chosen for it’s light weight) struggled at ISO 1600 especially with a little under exposure and the lens (35 f1.4L chosen because it was good even if heavy) was not perfect wide open and had no stabiliser.

Lots of texture, tone and some grain.

Sometimes an image just falls short of technical adequacy, but still has something to offer.

There is a print of this image hanging in our hall. It is one of few. As much as I love printing and love sharing, I struggle with this print. This image is technically poor enough, it jangles my nerves. Same dynamic as above.

The benefit of 10 years of advancement in stabiliser, lens and camera design achieves much higher technical competency, but is it any better on viewing?

What about softness, because sharp is only one way, not all the ways an image can be good?

An ancient garden shot, so lost to history (and a computer crash), I had to download my own Deviant Art upload. It reminds me (in passing, not equivalence) of Ansel Adam’s “Caladium Leaves Honolulu 1948”. I wish I had the original file for a retry of the processing.

There are lots of rules. Break them.

E-M1X quick thoughts

Well, it seems I no longer have the top M43 camera. No real issue for me, as I recently went from no focus tracking to very capable tracking and have little use for it anyway.

The market is no doubt going to run hot for the next few months, debating the relevance of a $3k+ (U.S.) camera and there will be, as with most arguments relevant and irrelevant comments made, and lots of both.

My feeling is much as I have stated recently.

The market, currently moving past the crop/full frame sensor SLR thinking will fragment into two, more defined and clearly split markets.

In the red corner will be a series of smaller sensor cameras ranging from 1” through M43 to a few APSC sized ones. These cameras will rely on innovative tech to support giant killing competitors, but the real point will be, they will not be competitors. These cameras will offer their own advantages in performance, size and design that will allow them to have a clearly defined and relevant role in the photographic future.

This user will be content with enough resolution to fill an A2+ sheet of paper, can accept the ISO trade off*** and may be video orientated and/or have genuine concerns about kit form factor. Some will be drawn be technical advancements either first seen or more easily implemented on smaller formats (apparently Olympus has broken the gyro stabiliser limit of 6.5 stops imposed on us by global physics!). Ironically, the irrelevance of ISO, common use of multi frame merging and benefits in DOF and lens design make M43 ideal for landscape shooting, where full frame dominates.

The E-M1X is as relevant as any other camera, but like the clever, nimble, short guy in the basketball team, it will have to score twice as many points to prove that. Interestingly, on paper it matches or betters it’s competition (1DX2 and D5) stat for stat except for the sensor size and mirrorless advantages. If Olympus can match or better their AF performance, then the only thing standing in their way will be ISO performance, which they have some fixes for***. Canon and Nikon already offer similar, smaller sensor cameras in the 7D2 and D500, so there is clearly a market there for sports specialists.

They will also be the enthusiast or emerging (from compact camera) market. Logically, there will always be a need for a smaller format and also an introductory format. Arguments over achievable quality will and should have already been shelved with the realisation that we have had more than enough for a while.

*

In the blue corner will be the “nothing is too much or too big” segment. Here the pixel counts will continue to grow as will sensor sizes. The two main constraints here are, as there have always been are sensor manufacture economics and the physics of lens design. This is the age of the “super” lens with all that entails (How heavy would all of the Sigma ART lenses be if stuffed into one bag?), but the reality is lens size is directly related to sensor size, not camera size.

Never before have we had so much power, but power always comes at a cost. Full frame users can carry around glass that puts some medium format film lenses to shame in mass alone. The development of these mega imaging tools will actually increase the relevance of the smaller formats for many people. In the past many smaller formats have been tried, but they always fell short due to the a lack of a clear size/weight/cost to quality benefit (APSC**** was actually one of those failed systems as was half frame which should be rightly called first frame as it came first).

1” and bigger sensors are past those concerns, or should be, already being accepted by many who bother to try them as more than adequate for professional, even fine art work. They have in effect become the modern 35mm, with full frame becoming more aligned with medium format (i.e. more quality but at a size and lens magnification “penalty”).

*

There was always room and relevance for the quality obsessed 8x10'“ or 4x5” large format photographer, along side the 35mm, 120 and smaller practitioner. There will be in the future, even if the internet needs the argument to stay fresh to keep it’s readership interested.

The main consideration is probably more to do with who we are dealing with in these format wars rather than the formats themselves.

The M43 consortium, Sony, Canon, Pentax/Ricoh and Fuji are large companies with secure foundations in development that in one way or another supports their camera divisions*. Nikon are the traditional giants in cameras with no other strong divisions so are possibly the most fragile, but the reality is, unlike the Korean giant Samsung who do everything based on their bottom line with a dominate or drop formula, no Japanese company will simply fold under the weight of failure**. It is not culturally acceptable. They may dump formats to some extent, but as long as there is support enough they will continue on. Olympus has even traded successfully out of a recent legal, moral and financial quagmire.

The best thing would be for everyone to accept the variety available as a benefit, not feel the need to nail lids on coffins of one opinion or the other.

Token image taken on an ancient camera. It prints up to 30” square beautifully.

*A Canon rep once quipped that 90% of their profile was in cameras, but 90% of their income came from other divisions such as printers and ink.

**Ricoh merging with Pentax and Sanyo selling some divisions into Panasonic are examples of Japanese business practice.

***The trade off being balanced out with smaller and cheaper fast and long lenses, with deeper depth of field at the same aperture and better implemented (due to size) stabilisers (hand holdable 800mm f2.8 equiv with 7+ stop stabiliser anyone?). The format gains effectively 2 stops of reach to speed or speed to depth of field advantage to make up for 1-4 stops of lower high ISO performance depending on the compared camera.

****It’s interesting that both APSC and Full Frame formats are named after defunct film format systems and one of those even misleadingly covers more than one digital equivalent. The term “full frame” does not even make sense. All formats are “full frame” for their format, so the assumption the 35mm film format is “the frame” to be measured against is, I guess assumed (I suppose medium format is “over” frame?). For more on this The Online Photographer has an interesting essay on the history of 35mm format. It turns out it was not even accepted as natural in it’s early days, but like the English language it rose to the top through volume of use and convenience.

what to pack for...

Another hypothetical, but what would I pack if I were going on a portrait specific shoot?

This is a favourite kit. It is my “core” both philosophically and technically. I do not get to do as much portrait work as I would like, but when I get the chance to actually share time and get to know someone, something great may come of it. Much of my favourite portrait work is of a client sensitive nature, but I have a few samples at hand, even if they are technically street images.

The Pen F and 45mm are the sweetest combination. I find it compelling enough to allow for clear decision making. It is perfect or something else is clearly better.

After the Pen and 45 comes the 17 for environmental and interactive compositions, the 25 if space is limited with the 45 and the 75, for those images that need pronounced separation or compression.

Apart from differing focal lengths, each lens has very different character and I believe the Olympus engineers have made each specifically to their role.

The 17 is natural, a little gritty and quite three dimensional. It is a story telling lens.

The 25 is literal, lush, smooth and brilliant. It has better Bokeh than the 45mm, but is a little unforgiving of focus errors.

The characteristic richness of the 25mm (and 12-40). This gave me a life line to my much missed Canon colour in the early days of the EM5.

The 45mm has a perfect balance between hard and soft sharp, with it’s widest aperture settings changing it’s look dramatically. At f1.8-2 it has a gentle sharpness that does not fight the DOF drop off. At f2.2-2.8 it becomes sharper and a little harder. At f4 it could hardly be sharper. This character is generally more appealing to me than a near perfect, predictable lens through the range.

The 75 is that perfect and predictable lens. It has a strong flattening effect that compliments it’s sharpness wide open. It is a bit of a one look lens, but that look is technically strong. It also shines as a candid portrait lens.

A spare EM5 is thrown in and a battery. The bag is the Filson Field Camera bag, but I have many other options for this clean little kit (Domke F802 if rare flash gear is needed, Filson regular field bag).

The little flash is used for the lightest fill, usually with a cheap little diffuser sock. There is a bigger diffuser/reflector in the background also. I really try to avoid artificial light, but will add to it gently if the effect is beneficial and try to make it as invisible as possible.

If not Olympus? Panasonic (G? 15, 25, 42.5 Leica’s.) or any other brand with equivalent glass, including the big three independents. This is the area I am most comfortable with M43 gear as I know it intimately, but it is also the most enticing area to shop as portrait lenses must be the best serviced type in photography. there is no brand, including Sony who are a little thin on options that does not do portrait glass well.

what to pack for....

As an extension of the Landscape bag reveal, I thought I would look at the longer expedition version of the same kit. This kit is a little more comprehensive as subject and logistical realities will be paramount and the assumption is this outfit can handle extended periods away from home.

The rugged EM1 would be in instead of the Pen F and 2 EM5’s added for versatility and depth (sh#t happens even to the best cameras). The assumption is weather will always be a factor, so the go-to lenses would be the 12-40 and 12-100 pro zooms. Both zooms can do each other’s jobs but their combined weight is less than a full frame 24-70 f2.8 zoom. The 75-300 and 25 prime would be used in any but the riskiest of circumstances (possibly the 75-300 would be replaced by a 40-150 pro and extender if funds/weight allow, possibly in exchange for the 12-100).

The usual filter, card, cleaning and battery stocks. The ability to clean a sensor and glass in the field would be wise.

A late edition is the 20,000 mh battery pack at the bottom. I have 8 batteries in total for my kit (10 if I borrow back my wife’s Pen mini), but only two for the EM1. This pack will give me about 8-12 charges.

One of the advantages of a modern, non full frame mirrorless kit is the ability to carry backup gear without breaking the process. The fast prime is a must for occasional low light portraits.

Knowing myself reasonably well, I know I would be drawn to short to medium telephoto compositions more often than not, so the 12-100 would be the first lens mounted, then the 12-40 as a lower light or less cumbersome option. I can also mount polarising and ND filters onto one permanently and not the other, making me much more responsive to changing situations.

The limit of a 12mm (24e) lens is reduced by two factors; I do not like overly wide perspective (that is for others to do well) and I can stitch a 2-3 frame panoramic as needed. If this changes, the little Laowa 7-5 would probably be added, but the reality is, only one image on this post was shot with a lens wider than a standard focal length (the ferns). The one directly below was taken using the full frame equivalent of a 200mm.

Assuming that what ever can go wrong will, a roll of cloth tape and a Gerber Suspension would be included as well as the usual trekking gear.

The tripod set up is semi modular and pretty basic. A medium weight head and legs with a light weight, backup head and legs with the ability to swap as needed. I am long over being precious about tripods. They need to be steady enough for a light M43 rig using electronic shutter and tall enough to reach my chest (41/2 feet). After that I really do not care.

The bag is a little trickier. The Pro tactic 350 Lowepro is the logical choice if I am working from a mobile/static base and for getting gear stowed safely, but if I am hiking in/out, the Inverse 100 (modified, see review) and a regular expedition back pack would be used. The extra kit would be in a padded bag at the top of my pack or in the smaller zip-on pack on the back. I could also carry a set of external bags and pouches and the removable waist belt from the Pro tactic for more options.

What would I use if not this? Again the Panasonic range would offer a logical alternative (G9, 12-60, 50-200 and 15 f1.7 Leica’s) as would Fuji (XT3, XH-1, 14, 18-55, 100-400, 90 macro), otherwise I would right now turn to SLR’s. Canon (7DII with 70-200 f4LII and 6DII with 24-70f4 IS, 1.4 extender and 50 f2.5 macro/portrait-love that old lens or 40mm pancake), Pentax (K-1 FF/CF cross-over kit as above), or Nikon (probably a D7500 for speed & D7200 for back up and added resolution, with a 16-85, 70-200 F4, extender and 50 f1.4 G). I would prefer mirrorless, but if I had to choose right now from Canon, Nikon and Pentax, SLR’s would be my choice.

Printing and satisfaction

What do you take photo’s for?

I take them to share me artistic vision, my personal take, on the things that “ring my bell” and how I chooses to interpret them. This must be formed from an elements of ego, curiosity and a need for acceptance, as these are the only driving forces in play (protection of those close to me and survival being effectively irrelevant in this context).

My first and most critical (and easiest to deceive) viewer is myself and I hope that that stays that way, because I dread the day I do not care or I think I have done it all.

Next are friends and family who are supportive by nature, so they are more easily impressed and finally the broader public, who can be inspiring or tough, but usually honest.

Posting on this site gives me some satisfaction. It can potentially reach anyone, anywhere in the world allowing my singular take on the places I go be interpreted, appreciated or ignored as desired by viewers who have their own, different perspective of the world. This can be exciting, but, from my end purely speculative.

True satisfaction, for me, comes from printing.

A print is permanent, tactile, resilient, beautiful in it’s own right, subtle and powerful. A print is a celebration of an image. No social media has the ability to just “be” for extended periods of time, allowing the viewer (even the maker) to discover, or re-discover it at different times and in different light. I personally find screen saver images annoying as their importance is at odds with their inconvenience as the thing blocking your entry into the device.

The print can come into your life periodically by chance rather than by choice. It can be there when your guard is down, filling a space on a wall patiently until needed. It can be inspiring, even triggering fond memories or just bolstering your confidence, reassuring you that you can achieve, even if you did not realise you did need it to.

Which prints you create is key. If you get too carried away with the process and start hanging anything that prints reasonably or takes your fancy in the short term, you run the risk of loosing interest, even reducing the whole process to a shadow of it’s potential.

The last thing you want to do is treat printing like social media, short term and disposable.

A cheaply printed lab image in a store bought frame, but the perfect reminder of our lost friend Jack. The placement of the print (in our bedroom in a quiet corner) allows me to re-discover him often, regardless of my mood.

For a print to soar, it must be relevant, technically sound (the level of technical accomplishment and presentation is of enormous importance, only trumped by relevance), properly sized and placed well.

This may sound like a pretty strict shopping list of needs, but the reality is, the process is where the satisfaction lies.

Posting an image to social media or a web page is relatively easy. The site will be tweaked for best presentation (hopefully), it will be viewed on a variety of back lit devices and it’s staying power, even if insanely popular only needs to be sustained in very short hits each viewing.

I know as well as any other, that my own standards drop when posting. The images are down sized, often chosen to show a point or as fillers for articles. The processing is aimed at punch and to eye catching as the viewer will or will not pay into it almost immediately and most importantly, it is going out to an anonymous world anonymously. ironically, I feel an image, even a sacrificial one, is needed to make a post noticeable.

Choosing a print can be harder and at the same time easier than posting to a site. If you ask your self the simple question “Is this worth the time, expense and emotional investment to print?” the answer usually comes pretty quickly.

The photo above of Jack’s framed image took a grand total of 3 minutes from idea to uploaded image. I actually like the tones and composition enough to think “printable?” on a basic level, but I am immediately aware of the image’s technical short-comings. This heightened awareness of follow through to a displayable product is one of the key reasons to print.

It makes you a better photographer. You do not cut corners at the beginning of the process, because you know it undermines any further investment.

It makes you a better processor. Processing to print teaches you a lot about image making (see point 1).

It makes you a better editor of your own work. Self editing is tough, but editing to printable standard helps remove the chaff. It allows you one clear and realistic question, “print or no print?”.

It allows you to define yourself as an artist, even leading to full series of prints and a clarity of vision.

It makes/helps you share and gain critique passively or more actively (great personalised gift). Hanging a print takes some courage. The print can then hang until noticed (or not), but does not require anonymous “likes” to instantly accumulate.

It is another hobby in itself, maybe even being your off season process for image making. I find summer can be less fulfilling as a photographer, so the hottest months will be reserved for printing.

It gives your images more presence, lifting them (and you) to the next level**. There is simply no higher form of display for a photographic image. Even a seemingly underwhelming image can lift if seen from the perspective of a print.

It gives your favourite images a physically stable, often archival, backup (really important!)***. The realistic life span of a single digital file is 5-15 years if you are careful (backing up and regularly transferring to upgraded devices not withstanding). Pigment dye prints have a 100 year+ storage life and are not format dependant.

It makes the whole process real, adding relevance and satisfaction to your expensive hobby. If you ask yourself “what is ultimately the most satisfying destination for my work?” this may be the answer.

Last but not least, Printing does not worship the computer screen gods of 100% detail resolution, freeing the printer up to enjoy other characteristics of lenses and subject. Print resolution is tied to pixel counts and other quality needs, but not to the same insane standards computer screens give us access to.

One of my favourite landscape images from a few years ago (especially the mono that I seem to have lost). This image was taken with plenty of pixels and lens quality but external forces were at play (pounding surf lost in the image to the long exposure) and is not sharp.

*With printing, less is more. Too many prints reduce the power of the whole, which is a lesson to remember when posting bucket loads of images to social media. The process itself can help prohibit over saturation, but there is still an element of tough self editing discipline involved.

**Printing and framing almost always empowers an image. When printing is genuinely in the offing, I find I look at my images differently. Even the one of Jack above had little presence when viewed as a basic 6x8 lab print. I sometimes “see” an image that will grow another foot when in a frame, one that would otherwise sit in the so-so category.

*** The projected life span of a digital image is apparently 5 years if device based, although cloud storage does offer potentially longer if you are lucky. Formats change, devices die, hard drives crash and things get lost/deleted. It happens. Meanwhile the box of old prints under the spare bed sits patiently until needed. Even pro level ink-jet printers can make prints that have archival storage lives of 50+ years.

Your do not need to go out and buy a printer, but if you are inspired to, be aware that the journey to good printing is not necessarily quick or easy, but even if you rely on a good lab, please print, frame and share.

It will do you as much good as it does those you share with.